At first glance I thought playing the same numbers each time would be better odds. That way you only have to contend with one random event (the actual draw of the numbers) where as if you do a quick pick you have to hope that two random events coincide which I thought would make the odds worse.

Does this logic really hold?

Logged

No trees were killed in the posting of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

How Stuff Works doesn't devote any time to either method. I guess if you're going to play the lottery you should use any or all of the methods they recommend to increase your statistical likelihood.

My advice? I'm not a statistician, but I'd say you shouldn't waste your time unless you're doing it for fun only. Also, I have friends who have "systems" for buying scratch tickets which seem to work in the long run, but you have to keep in mind that their profit margins are really thin. You'd be better off taking that same money and investing it in any random stock.

Logged

"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Neither system has better odds. The odds of a lottery number repeating are the same as any other number, so no number "has it's time." Even though as the number of lotteries increases, the likelihood of any individual number coming up rises, this means nothing for each individual drawing. Think of it this way, if I'm rolling a dice and pick the number 6 every time for ten roles, then my odds are good. but if it gets to roll 10 without a 6 coming up, then I've only got a 1 / 6 chance. You'd be just as well picking randomly each time. And each time you would have a 1 / 6 chance because the past rolls have no influence on the odds for future rolls.

True but does it make a difference for two random events being equal versus one fixed event matching one random event i.e. do two rolls of the dices have the same odds of being equal as one roll of the dice being equal to your number?

Logged

No trees were killed in the posting of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

True but does it make a difference for two random events being equal versus one fixed event matching one random event i.e. do two rolls of the dices have the same odds of being equal as one roll of the dice being equal to your number?

I think the odds "reset" with each drawing. I don't think that playing the same numbers repeatedly vs. a random set of numbers has any advantage.

You should do that "Wheel Method" that HSW suggests. Even if it's just an office pool for fun I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least try to win .

Logged

"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

True but does it make a difference for two random events being equal versus one fixed event matching one random event i.e. do two rolls of the dices have the same odds of being equal as one roll of the dice being equal to your number?

Okay I'm playing two games. In one I need to roll a 6. In the other I have to roll two dice and they need to match. The odds of winning the first are clearly 1 / 6. Now there are 36 possible combinations of rolls in the second game:

If I were going to play the lottery, I'd play the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6 and I would have exactly the same odds as either your quick pick or your self-picked numbers.

Read the article I cited, they say that while this isn't any better or worse than any other strategy which doesn't employ observation and statistics the problem is that if this sequence is ever picked your payout is likely to be much lower because a lot of people who think they're being clever will pick that sequence.

Logged

"If I were an Algebra teacher I'd give everyone a letter grade but they'd have to figure out the value of the letter" -- A friend of mine

Read the article I cited, they say that while this isn't any better or worse than any other strategy which doesn't employ observation and statistics the problem is that if this sequence is ever picked your payout is likely to be much lower because a lot of people who think they're being clever will pick that sequence.

But if I were playing it would be to prove a point. But then, as is by not playing the lottery twice weekly for the past 15 years I have come out $1,560 ahead of my classmate who has.

I'm willing to bet that no winner of the lotto has been a mathematician or a statician. It's seemingly always some redneck from the boons who took his/her last dollar from their welfare check down to the local gas station.

At first glance I thought playing the same numbers each time would be better odds. That way you only have to contend with one random event (the actual draw of the numbers) where as if you do a quick pick you have to hope that two random events coincide which I thought would make the odds worse.

Does this logic really hold?

has anyone quoted Adam Smith yet?

Logged

Quote from: Dale Carnegie

When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.